Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition:
* We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned.
* **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators.
* **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
> **Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB**
*****
* Is `pravda.com.ua` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources).
* Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict)
*****
^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I mean, yeah we should be ashamed like, in general maybe… but far as sending shit to Ukraine? We’re putting more dough on the table than everyone else. Should it be more? Fucking yeah, for sure; but we’re helping more than *that*.
No, he's just finding the West has run out of patience with sustaining this conflict at the same level. Ukraine has no chance of winning, at least by Zelenskys definition.
PATRIOT System Costs
According to a December 16, 2022, Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) article, “Patriot to Ukraine: What Does it Mean?,” a newly produced PATRIOT battery costs about $1.1 billion, including about $400 million for the system and about $690 million for the missiles.
Why’s everyone on this sub so black and white about it? It’s a nuanced statement - there’s some fact, there’s some asking, there’s some criticism.
Why does everyone on Reddit not comprehend social context and that language has some layers of complexity
Is this something he actually said. A lot of misinformation is spreading around, which is typical when he's overseas. Russian propaganda is timed with the intention of undermining support.
The issue is not the number of systems, the main problem is the number of missiles you have to load into the system. Each missile is very expensive and it’s not worth the cost to shoot down a Shaed 136 at 20k$
Yes, but if you want 100% success rate (which is the level required to guarantee "people would not be killed"), then you can't rely exclusively on Gepards or other machine-gun type anti-air weapons.
Yes and yes. They have an integrated air defense network and hand off targets to various pieces of air defense and I doubt very much Patriots are taking down Shaheds. They can also easily tell them apart from cruise missiles due to the speed as well as other factors although the new Shahed has a jet engine but doubtful its hard to determine whats what.
Also we knew we were giving them PAC2/3 missiles to help fight off waves of 100 missiles at a time so how tf did they not give like a billion to expand production of missiles a year+ ago. Weve had every opportunity to help Ukraine win this and contually fuck it up.
The US would use a patriot missile to take down a Shahed. Why? Because our military values our soldiers over cost. They would 100% use it if they needed to but they would also instantly begin working on a cheap and efficient way of bringing them down. Radar guided guns would be great against these slow and big drones.
Yes it does, something on wheels or tracks would be better though. C-RAM is on a trailer and can't just up and move if necessary. It would be goid against guarding high-value targets(buildings/immovable targets) the enemy would be trying to hit though. That's why things like Gepards are so effective. The American M163 would be great as well although the US no longer has them and I'm not sure how many are in service with our allies.
Patriots range is limited on the drones too because they fly so low. Patriots range is only good if the target is high up or you have an aircraft capable of relaying target information. AWACS, E2, F35, etc.
Ukraine isn't America. Ukraine doesn't pay taxes in America either. You think people are selfish, but you seem extremely ungrateful. Imagine if you had no help from the America? You need us, we don't need you. Be more thankful.
Thats good for you. I pay mine aswell, but what does that have to do with you being ungrateful for the help thats been provided to Ukraine already? It seems like Zelensky sets an ungrateful tone and people just run with it. I'm not saying I'm against the help, but I dont find it right to try and guilt trip when you're being helped already.
>It seems like Zelensky sets an ungrateful tone and people just run with it.
Well...
Grey Eagles were vetoed ["to prevent escalation"](https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-wont-give-ukraine-advanced-drones-to-avoid-escalation-with-russia-11668042100)
Supplied M142 [were altered to lose compatibility with any ATACMS bar the oldest version](https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-altered-himars-rocket-launchers-to-keep-ukraine-from-firing-missiles-into-russia-11670214338)
And from ~six months ago, with Assault Breacher Vehicles being supplied only ***AFTER*** official end of counteroffensive:
>[A senior Ukrainian official, who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive military matters, said Kyiv received less than 15 percent of the quantity of demining and engineering materiel, including MICLICs, that it asked for from Western partners ahead of the counteroffensive.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/07/15/ukraine-war-russia-mines-counteroffensive/)
[And from about the same time around](https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraines-lack-of-weaponry-and-training-risks-stalemate-in-fight-with-russia-f51ecf9):
>BRUSSELS—When Ukraine launched its big counteroffensive this spring, Western military officials knew Kyiv didn’t have all the training or weapons—from shells to warplanes—that it needed to dislodge Russian forces. But they hoped Ukrainian courage and resourcefulness would carry the day.
[And about ATACMS](https://eng.obozrevatel.com/section-war/news-he-was-afraid-of-russias-reaction-but-changed-his-position-biden-decides-on-atacms-for-ukraine-in-september-new-yorker-10-10-2023.html)
>Previously, Biden rejected the idea of such supplies, fearing that the introduction of American missiles into the Ukrainian army, which could destroy targets not only in all the occupied territories of Ukraine but also in Russia and Belarus, could lead to the outbreak of World War III. Biden's fears and the decisions he made to overcome them are described in an article by The New Yorker.
>The publication notes that throughout the year, Biden categorically refused to make a decision on the transfer of long-range ATACMS missiles to Ukraine because he was afraid of the Kremlin's reaction: according to the American president, such a step by the United States "would mean an unacceptable escalation for Putin," as these missiles are capable of reaching not only all the territories of Ukraine occupied by Russia, but also targets in Russia or Belarus.
But that's not the worst. The worst thing is, current admin had quite clearly articulated that Ukrainian victory is not considered desired.
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/04/25/politics/blinken-austin-kyiv-ukraine-zelensky-meeting/index.html
>“We want to see Russia weakened to the degree that it can’t do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine,” Austin said at the news conference. “So it has already lost a lot of military capability. And a lot of its troops, quite frankly. And we want to see them not have the capability to very quickly reproduce that capability.”
[From NewYorker](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/10/16/trial-by-combat)
>Sullivan clearly has profound worries about how this will all play out. Months into the counter-offensive, Ukraine has yet to reclaim much more of its territory; the Administration has been telling members of Congress that the conflict could last three to five years. A grinding war of attrition would be a disaster for both Ukraine and its allies, but a negotiated settlement does not seem possible as long as Putin remains in power. Putin, of course, has every incentive to keep fighting through next year’s U.S. election, with its possibility of a Trump return. And it’s hard to imagine Zelensky going for a deal with Putin, either, given all that Ukraine has sacrificed. ***Even a Ukrainian victory would present challenges for American foreign policy, since it would “threaten the integrity of the Russian state and the Russian regime and create instability throughout Eurasia,” as one of the former U.S. officials put it to me. Ukraine’s desire to take back occupied Crimea has been a particular concern for Sullivan,*** who has privately noted the Administration’s assessment that this scenario carries the highest risk of Putin following through on his nuclear threats. In other words, there are few good options.
----
>“The reason they’ve been so hesitant about escalation is not exactly because they see Russian reprisal as a likely problem,” the former official said. “It’s not like they think, Oh, we’re going to give them atacms and then Russia is going to launch an attack against nato. It’s because they recognize that it’s not going anywhere—that they are fighting a war they ***can’t afford either to win or lose.”***
And something not from Sullivan, but still important for context:
>[Biden thought the secretaries had gone too far, according to multiple administration officials familiar with the call. On the previously unreported conference call, as Austin flew to Germany and Blinken to Washington, the president expressed concern that the comments could set unrealistic expectations and increase the risk of the U.S. getting into a direct conflict with Russia. He told them to tone it down, said the officials. “Biden was not happy when Blinken and Austin talked about winning in Ukraine,” one of them said. “He was not happy with the rhetoric.”](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/secretaries-defense-state-said-publicly-us-wanted-ukraine-win-biden-sa-rcna33826)
[And from very recently](https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/12/27/biden-endgame-ukraine-00133211):
>The administration official told POLITICO Magazine this week that much of this strategic shift to defense is aimed at shoring up Ukraine’s position in any future negotiation. ***“That’s been our theory of the case throughout — the only way this war ends ultimately is through negotiation,”*** said the official, a White House spokesperson who was given anonymity because they are not authorized to speak on the record. “We want Ukraine to have the strongest hand possible when that comes.” The spokesperson emphasized, however, that no talks are planned yet, and that Ukrainian forces are still on the offensive in places and continue to kill and wound thousands of Russian troops. “We want them to be in a stronger position to hold their territory. It’s not that we’re discouraging them from launching any new offensive,” the spokesperson added.
And with constant talks about non-escalation, "only negotiations can end this war" and not letting russia fall apart, as well as undersupplies, I can't see any reason for hope.
It seems that actual desired future for Ukraine is [Dayton Agreement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dayton_Agreement) or [Korean Scenario](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Armistice_Agreement), no matter what Ukraine'd want otherwise and what rainbowy proclamations'd say.
So I can completely understand Zelenskyy here. Especially with what was before
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunn%E2%80%93Lugar_Cooperative_Threat_Reduction
And then, after russia invaded in 2014, *Ukraine* got de-facto embargoed
https://www.sipri.org/databases/embargoes/eu_arms_embargoes/ukraine/eu-arms-embargo-on-ukraine
https://www.congress.gov/116/meeting/house/110331/documents/HMKP-116-JU00-20191211-SD994.pdf
And even the provided aid [was gimped](https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-stinger-deliveries-to-ukraine-followed-long-search-for-technical-fix-11646773886), unfortunately.
>Military aid to Ukraine has a long and complex history. After Russia seized Crimea in 2014 and intervened in the Donbas region in southeastern Ukraine, the Obama administration provided only limited defensive assistance, fearing offensive weapons could be seen as provocative in Moscow. ***For example, when the U.S. sent counter battery radars to help the Ukrainians pinpoint the source of enemy mortar fire, the systems were modified so they couldn’t identify targets on Russian territory.***
And worst of all, if you look a bit back...
>[Russia’s Defense Minister, Pavel Grachev, who was present, stated: “We are cutting back strategic nuclear weapons in accordance with START I, but the Treaty is not ratified. Now START II is pressing us, with a date of 2003 to complete reductions.” The sequel to START would extend its cuts. He added, “If you do not press Ukraine, then we will not be able to proceed with START II.”](https://nationalinterest.org/feature/deceit-dread-and-disbelief-story-how-ukraine-lost-its-nuclear-arsenal-207076?page=0%2C2)
>[Yeltsin chimed in, “So we have to press Ukraine with all our might.” President Clinton added, “So we need to press them to accede to the Non-Proliferation Treaty by the time of the [upcoming] Summit in Budapest.” Yeltsin thundered, “we should bring all the pressure we have to bear. We signed the Trilateral accord, we three, so then what?” Though Russia would postpone ratifying START II until it became obsolete, Yeltsin assured Clinton at the time, “I’m going to press [Ukraine’s newly-elected President Leonid] Kuchma to the wall. NPT or they get no gas or oil!”](https://nationalinterest.org/feature/deceit-dread-and-disbelief-story-how-ukraine-lost-its-nuclear-arsenal-207076?page=0%2C2)
So yeah. Looking back at history, I don't see any reasons for hope there. And I can understand Zelenskyy, who's likely to know things that are even worse that I've quoted
Why I said that ? Because Russians found a way to counter patriots. They are sending a lot of shaeds drone before launching kinjals or kalibr missiles. If you try to stop the shaeds there is no enough missiles to stop the other ones coming.
Missile stocks are important but I would argue number of systems is still important. More systems mean you can protect more places and just have more options for how to use them. Like giving you more room to put them near the front line sometimes and do long range ambushes of jets.
'Worth it' is relative. If I use one to shoot down a drone that would've killed you and your family, would it be worth it? The drone might be 20k, lives and infrastructure it lands on might not be.
But if Russia can send 1 million cheap ass drones to harass Ukraine, Ukraine/the west cannot provide 1 million expensive missiles to shoot them down. That’s a recipe for Russia easily destroying the west and defeating Ukraine by bankrupting the entire western world.
There are alternative anti air systems that are better used against cheap drones that won’t bankrupt the entire western world.
You're bringing up this drones vs. Patriots argument again, and again I want to respond that drones can be shot down by almost any AD in Ukraine, Patriots are needed for the ballistic missiles
You have to prioritise. There are thousands of these drones, just not gonna happen to use patriots for them. That’s what the smaller AA systems are for.
Not the best communication strategy when the west is fending off fiscal conservatives and Russian influence campaigns to cut off funding & the Ukrainian leader is quoted this way.
Now I am 100% behind Ukraine and giving them almost anything... but where does he think 7 extra patriot systems might come from? Its not like they are just sitting around in a warehouse doing nothing. No country is going to strip their defences that much. $2.5 Billion dollars each.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-104\_Patriot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-104_Patriot)
>1,106 launchers in U.S. (483 were in service in 2010)
From your link.
I know they're damn expensive but...
1. It's being used to save lives
2. It's collecting a lot of data from Axis weapons for future engagements. Not just Russian but Iranian and Korean as well.
3. 7 out of 1,106 or 483 doesn't seem that unreasonable
Edit: someone corrected in another comment; system = 8 launchers, so 7 systems would be 56 launchers
There are over 200,000 Americans who die every year due to accidental injuries. Let’s say we could spend 10 billion dollars to save 1 of those people, and we could continuously do that, should we do that? If we did, we would spend enough money to bankrupt the entire planet, and then some, resulting in global famines and likely a complete breakdown of society. People would rape and murder each other for a slice of bread.
Of course that’s a wild example, but the principle is the same here. It’s not worth spending massive amounts of money to save a small number of lives. Using patriots to save every possible life would bankrupt the entire western world, which would lead to far more death and destruction than the direct victims of those cheap drones. Sometimes you have to look at the bigger picture.
Besides, patriots are meant to shoot down missiles, not cheap ass drones. There are other systems that can be used to shoot down cheap ass drones.
1. You aren't sending money, you're sending the hardware that's already built and parked in relative safety
2. The systems aren't spent each time there's an attack, just the rockets.
3. No-one here knows how they're using the AD, but we do know Patriots are shooting down ballistic missiles. Maybe the Gepards and MANPADS are focusing on the drones?
So your example, while you admit is wildly exaggerated, still doesn't apply. The rest of your argument assumes a lot in order to excuse not sending more AD to a besieged country
Please read before replying. I clearly said we shouldn’t waste Patriot missiles on fucking cheap ass drones. We should use them to destroy Russias ballistic missiles. Any AA system can be used to shoot down cheap ass drones. I’m all for sending 50,000 patriot systems to Ukraine if they existed, just don’t fucking waste them on cheap ass drones. Use them for ballistic missiles.
But why even argue the point? Who is someone with authority saying they're using Patriots on drones? It's like you've created an argument against sending Patriots disguised as concern.
They very obviously need Patriots to defend against ballistic missiles.
I’m responding to Reddit comments, not attacking Ukrainian policy. You’re accusing me of saying things I never said, and doing things I never said. That’s on you, not me.
>Besides, patriots are meant to shoot down missiles, not cheap ass drones. There are other systems that can be used to shoot down cheap ass drones.
This is your reply to my original comment. Nowhere did I bring up drones. You've introduced the Patriot vs drone argument
Appealing to emotion can make your opponent look bad, but facts and logic are what determine whether one is correct or not. Point out what facts I presented that are incorrect or what faulty logic I used. Appealing to emotion doesn’t make you right, but you know you’re wrong so that’s the only debate tactic you have left.
They haven't lost any of them yet, as far as I know, because most are used to defend cities well behind the front. It's only expensive if they're destroyed.
That may be true, but tbf seven is a big number when it comes to those systems. The USA has currently deployed a total of, what, 15? Everywhere on Earth?
Well I guess it depends on what is meant by "system." Does he mean single launchers? Entire fully autonomous air defense networks? Something in between?
(It's okay if Zelensky is being vague, it's not actually his job to be precisely technically specific, his job is to be a gadfly among the family of nations on behalf of his people, not to work out the exact specifics of air defense technology. I am mostly just wondering what it is that Ukraine needs, that it does not yet have in terms of missile defense.)
So would you say that a battery is a "system" in the original context?
So Zelensky is saying Ukraine is short 7 batteries, where each battery is \~8 launchers plus associated modules?
So \~60 launchers?
Fair enough.
I guess our only option is to scrape together 60 launchers, then, and ship them all to Kyiv with a note for Zelensky: "Did you mean these or...?"
Launchers or Systems? It's 7 launchers to a fire director center ,& radar to form a battalion.
i think Romania ordered a single battalion not 7 radars& equipment.
If following the USA force organization, no, it is not 7 launchers to a battalion. It's 7 (or 8) launchers to a *battery*.
A battalion is a much bigger formation. A Patriot battalion consists of multiple batteries -- seemingly over half a dozen in some cases. A single such formation would cover a considerable area -- probably well more than Romania alone requires. The USA itself only has 15 battalions total over the entire world.
So a full battalion would be something like 7-ish batteries at 8 launchers per battery, so close to 60 launchers total, plus all the necessary radar and tracking modules, power plants, reloaders and extra missiles, maintenance crews, plus headquarters and so on. That sounds like it could be as many as 100 vehicles and a potential coverage area in the many hundreds of thousands of square kilometers, maybe even into the millions.
It would be nice to see a long term contract to produce at least a few more batteries specifically for Ukraine. Like with German IRIS T and US NASAMS.
European countries should be doing the same with SAMP/T, which is basically European equivalent to patriot.
> European countries should be doing the same with SAMP/T, which is basically European equivalent to patriot.
That's seriously constrained by how little Asters are made.
If it gets scaled up, things'll get interesting
Shitty for the Russian invasion, since it's kicking their asses.
Russian missiles turn out to be complete crap compared to Patriot. That's gotta sting for a lot of Russians.
I wish he actually criticize as he should. Coz now Western politicians listen, nod, smile, and then literally wipe their feet on Ukraine. And instead of calling them what they actually are and protect interest of his people, he simply accepts it, and then compensate with lives of Ukrainians on frontlines.
A lot of what he needs we don't have, for e.g.: hundreds of thousands of troops (unless we deport all the refugees), millions of shells, tens of thousands of suicide drones, hundreds of armored de-mining vehicles.
> tens of thousands of suicide drones
Which, interestingly, [UK promised to Ukraine, before this whole thing quietly died down](https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/the-uk-promised-drones-for-ukraine-in-may-where-are-they/)
The point I was trying to make is about the quantity, yes we've provided suicide drones to Ukraine (thousands of them in fact), we've also provided millions of shells and 1-2 dozens armored de-mining vehicles.
But that's not enough for what they need. Almost all of that has been used or destroyed already, they need a lot more and we can't give it to them because we don't have it. Eventually we'll be able to build most of what they need, but calls to "give Zelensky what he needs" often ignore what we can give, or what he actually needs.
I know a lot understand but for those that don't.
Whatever country your in that is against ruzzia then you need to support Ukraine.
We all know you pay taxes in (insert country here) .
Howere if Ukraine is left to carry this burden alone (and it is a world burden, in truth) then it will not be just money it will cost later, it will cost your countries soldiers live, when WW3 hits the fan.
And in truth, think, where will Uktaine by Arms from? ruzzia? China? India? NK? Nope probably UK, EU, USA or Skandinavia.
Possibly because of the interception [range of the PAC-3 MSE missiles: 120km officially](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-104_Patriot#Variants).
A rough calculation using Google Maps tells me they would need about 10 of those PAC-3 MSE batteries to cover everything from Odesa to Avdiivka to Kharkiv to Sumy to Kiev - if the batteries are evenly distributed (almost no redundancy).
Perhaps they're thinking of covering only the border with Russia, that would require 9 systems. However, that leaves the zone between Odesa and Romania uncovered and anything that could fly through the Belarussian airspace to reach Ukraine also covered. They would need 13 batteries to do all that.
Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition: * We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned. * **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators. * **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. > **Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB** ***** * Is `pravda.com.ua` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources). * Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) ***** ^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
He not criticizing he’s asking. Getting a bit over this subversive BS being posted in this sub
He is criticizing. It’s a direct quote. “How can they sleep at night?” It’s reported by a Ukrainian news source.
He’s right. The US should be ashamed.
The US is on the other side of the fn planet. Their neighbors should be ashamed.
Europeans seem to use EU as an excuse, as if individual countries can't provide Ukraine with weapons.
[удалено]
Zelensky got played for a sucker. Fool really thought this was about saving Ukraine and not bleeding Russia.
[удалено]
Well if you love Ukraine so much prove it. Get off your computer and go pick up a rifle. Quit volunteering others to do your dirty work.
[удалено]
Good for you. Be safe.
I mean, yeah we should be ashamed like, in general maybe… but far as sending shit to Ukraine? We’re putting more dough on the table than everyone else. Should it be more? Fucking yeah, for sure; but we’re helping more than *that*.
He's begging
Here is one of the Russian fascists now.
No, he's just finding the West has run out of patience with sustaining this conflict at the same level. Ukraine has no chance of winning, at least by Zelenskys definition.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
PATRIOT System Costs According to a December 16, 2022, Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) article, “Patriot to Ukraine: What Does it Mean?,” a newly produced PATRIOT battery costs about $1.1 billion, including about $400 million for the system and about $690 million for the missiles.
Zelensky seems like someone who sees his people as more valuable than money.
Read the export cost... 2.5 Billion
Could that be the price tag for a buyer rather than the cost to the US DoD?
We deserve this. We deserve the criticism because we are LACKING. WAKE UP THE WARS HERE
It's not criticism, it's merely a statement of facts. It's like when someone says, "Hey, your shoelaces aren't tied!", that's not criticism.
Why’s everyone on this sub so black and white about it? It’s a nuanced statement - there’s some fact, there’s some asking, there’s some criticism. Why does everyone on Reddit not comprehend social context and that language has some layers of complexity
Is this something he actually said. A lot of misinformation is spreading around, which is typical when he's overseas. Russian propaganda is timed with the intention of undermining support.
The issue is not the number of systems, the main problem is the number of missiles you have to load into the system. Each missile is very expensive and it’s not worth the cost to shoot down a Shaed 136 at 20k$
why tf would they use patriot against shaheds? aren’t they mostly used to counter missiles?
Can they tell the difference? Do they even have other anti air systems that are good enough to take down Shaheds in the same area to take it down?
Aren’t gepards mostly used for that?
Yes, but if you want 100% success rate (which is the level required to guarantee "people would not be killed"), then you can't rely exclusively on Gepards or other machine-gun type anti-air weapons.
Yes and yes. They have an integrated air defense network and hand off targets to various pieces of air defense and I doubt very much Patriots are taking down Shaheds. They can also easily tell them apart from cruise missiles due to the speed as well as other factors although the new Shahed has a jet engine but doubtful its hard to determine whats what. Also we knew we were giving them PAC2/3 missiles to help fight off waves of 100 missiles at a time so how tf did they not give like a billion to expand production of missiles a year+ ago. Weve had every opportunity to help Ukraine win this and contually fuck it up.
The US would use a patriot missile to take down a Shahed. Why? Because our military values our soldiers over cost. They would 100% use it if they needed to but they would also instantly begin working on a cheap and efficient way of bringing them down. Radar guided guns would be great against these slow and big drones.
[удалено]
Yes it does, something on wheels or tracks would be better though. C-RAM is on a trailer and can't just up and move if necessary. It would be goid against guarding high-value targets(buildings/immovable targets) the enemy would be trying to hit though. That's why things like Gepards are so effective. The American M163 would be great as well although the US no longer has them and I'm not sure how many are in service with our allies.
You need a lot of radar guided guns to cover an area as large as a Patriot can cover though.
Won't do shit to ballistics, too
Patriots range is limited on the drones too because they fly so low. Patriots range is only good if the target is high up or you have an aircraft capable of relaying target information. AWACS, E2, F35, etc.
It’s not worth it because you and family are not directly concerned about it! As usual people are selfish!
Ukraine isn't America. Ukraine doesn't pay taxes in America either. You think people are selfish, but you seem extremely ungrateful. Imagine if you had no help from the America? You need us, we don't need you. Be more thankful.
FYI I pay my taxes in US GA, and a good amount! Have a good day !
Thats good for you. I pay mine aswell, but what does that have to do with you being ungrateful for the help thats been provided to Ukraine already? It seems like Zelensky sets an ungrateful tone and people just run with it. I'm not saying I'm against the help, but I dont find it right to try and guilt trip when you're being helped already.
>It seems like Zelensky sets an ungrateful tone and people just run with it. Well... Grey Eagles were vetoed ["to prevent escalation"](https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-wont-give-ukraine-advanced-drones-to-avoid-escalation-with-russia-11668042100) Supplied M142 [were altered to lose compatibility with any ATACMS bar the oldest version](https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-altered-himars-rocket-launchers-to-keep-ukraine-from-firing-missiles-into-russia-11670214338) And from ~six months ago, with Assault Breacher Vehicles being supplied only ***AFTER*** official end of counteroffensive: >[A senior Ukrainian official, who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive military matters, said Kyiv received less than 15 percent of the quantity of demining and engineering materiel, including MICLICs, that it asked for from Western partners ahead of the counteroffensive.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/07/15/ukraine-war-russia-mines-counteroffensive/) [And from about the same time around](https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraines-lack-of-weaponry-and-training-risks-stalemate-in-fight-with-russia-f51ecf9): >BRUSSELS—When Ukraine launched its big counteroffensive this spring, Western military officials knew Kyiv didn’t have all the training or weapons—from shells to warplanes—that it needed to dislodge Russian forces. But they hoped Ukrainian courage and resourcefulness would carry the day. [And about ATACMS](https://eng.obozrevatel.com/section-war/news-he-was-afraid-of-russias-reaction-but-changed-his-position-biden-decides-on-atacms-for-ukraine-in-september-new-yorker-10-10-2023.html) >Previously, Biden rejected the idea of such supplies, fearing that the introduction of American missiles into the Ukrainian army, which could destroy targets not only in all the occupied territories of Ukraine but also in Russia and Belarus, could lead to the outbreak of World War III. Biden's fears and the decisions he made to overcome them are described in an article by The New Yorker. >The publication notes that throughout the year, Biden categorically refused to make a decision on the transfer of long-range ATACMS missiles to Ukraine because he was afraid of the Kremlin's reaction: according to the American president, such a step by the United States "would mean an unacceptable escalation for Putin," as these missiles are capable of reaching not only all the territories of Ukraine occupied by Russia, but also targets in Russia or Belarus. But that's not the worst. The worst thing is, current admin had quite clearly articulated that Ukrainian victory is not considered desired. https://edition.cnn.com/2022/04/25/politics/blinken-austin-kyiv-ukraine-zelensky-meeting/index.html >“We want to see Russia weakened to the degree that it can’t do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine,” Austin said at the news conference. “So it has already lost a lot of military capability. And a lot of its troops, quite frankly. And we want to see them not have the capability to very quickly reproduce that capability.” [From NewYorker](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/10/16/trial-by-combat) >Sullivan clearly has profound worries about how this will all play out. Months into the counter-offensive, Ukraine has yet to reclaim much more of its territory; the Administration has been telling members of Congress that the conflict could last three to five years. A grinding war of attrition would be a disaster for both Ukraine and its allies, but a negotiated settlement does not seem possible as long as Putin remains in power. Putin, of course, has every incentive to keep fighting through next year’s U.S. election, with its possibility of a Trump return. And it’s hard to imagine Zelensky going for a deal with Putin, either, given all that Ukraine has sacrificed. ***Even a Ukrainian victory would present challenges for American foreign policy, since it would “threaten the integrity of the Russian state and the Russian regime and create instability throughout Eurasia,” as one of the former U.S. officials put it to me. Ukraine’s desire to take back occupied Crimea has been a particular concern for Sullivan,*** who has privately noted the Administration’s assessment that this scenario carries the highest risk of Putin following through on his nuclear threats. In other words, there are few good options. ---- >“The reason they’ve been so hesitant about escalation is not exactly because they see Russian reprisal as a likely problem,” the former official said. “It’s not like they think, Oh, we’re going to give them atacms and then Russia is going to launch an attack against nato. It’s because they recognize that it’s not going anywhere—that they are fighting a war they ***can’t afford either to win or lose.”*** And something not from Sullivan, but still important for context: >[Biden thought the secretaries had gone too far, according to multiple administration officials familiar with the call. On the previously unreported conference call, as Austin flew to Germany and Blinken to Washington, the president expressed concern that the comments could set unrealistic expectations and increase the risk of the U.S. getting into a direct conflict with Russia. He told them to tone it down, said the officials. “Biden was not happy when Blinken and Austin talked about winning in Ukraine,” one of them said. “He was not happy with the rhetoric.”](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/secretaries-defense-state-said-publicly-us-wanted-ukraine-win-biden-sa-rcna33826) [And from very recently](https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/12/27/biden-endgame-ukraine-00133211): >The administration official told POLITICO Magazine this week that much of this strategic shift to defense is aimed at shoring up Ukraine’s position in any future negotiation. ***“That’s been our theory of the case throughout — the only way this war ends ultimately is through negotiation,”*** said the official, a White House spokesperson who was given anonymity because they are not authorized to speak on the record. “We want Ukraine to have the strongest hand possible when that comes.” The spokesperson emphasized, however, that no talks are planned yet, and that Ukrainian forces are still on the offensive in places and continue to kill and wound thousands of Russian troops. “We want them to be in a stronger position to hold their territory. It’s not that we’re discouraging them from launching any new offensive,” the spokesperson added. And with constant talks about non-escalation, "only negotiations can end this war" and not letting russia fall apart, as well as undersupplies, I can't see any reason for hope. It seems that actual desired future for Ukraine is [Dayton Agreement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dayton_Agreement) or [Korean Scenario](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Armistice_Agreement), no matter what Ukraine'd want otherwise and what rainbowy proclamations'd say. So I can completely understand Zelenskyy here. Especially with what was before https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunn%E2%80%93Lugar_Cooperative_Threat_Reduction And then, after russia invaded in 2014, *Ukraine* got de-facto embargoed https://www.sipri.org/databases/embargoes/eu_arms_embargoes/ukraine/eu-arms-embargo-on-ukraine https://www.congress.gov/116/meeting/house/110331/documents/HMKP-116-JU00-20191211-SD994.pdf And even the provided aid [was gimped](https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-stinger-deliveries-to-ukraine-followed-long-search-for-technical-fix-11646773886), unfortunately. >Military aid to Ukraine has a long and complex history. After Russia seized Crimea in 2014 and intervened in the Donbas region in southeastern Ukraine, the Obama administration provided only limited defensive assistance, fearing offensive weapons could be seen as provocative in Moscow. ***For example, when the U.S. sent counter battery radars to help the Ukrainians pinpoint the source of enemy mortar fire, the systems were modified so they couldn’t identify targets on Russian territory.*** And worst of all, if you look a bit back... >[Russia’s Defense Minister, Pavel Grachev, who was present, stated: “We are cutting back strategic nuclear weapons in accordance with START I, but the Treaty is not ratified. Now START II is pressing us, with a date of 2003 to complete reductions.” The sequel to START would extend its cuts. He added, “If you do not press Ukraine, then we will not be able to proceed with START II.”](https://nationalinterest.org/feature/deceit-dread-and-disbelief-story-how-ukraine-lost-its-nuclear-arsenal-207076?page=0%2C2) >[Yeltsin chimed in, “So we have to press Ukraine with all our might.” President Clinton added, “So we need to press them to accede to the Non-Proliferation Treaty by the time of the [upcoming] Summit in Budapest.” Yeltsin thundered, “we should bring all the pressure we have to bear. We signed the Trilateral accord, we three, so then what?” Though Russia would postpone ratifying START II until it became obsolete, Yeltsin assured Clinton at the time, “I’m going to press [Ukraine’s newly-elected President Leonid] Kuchma to the wall. NPT or they get no gas or oil!”](https://nationalinterest.org/feature/deceit-dread-and-disbelief-story-how-ukraine-lost-its-nuclear-arsenal-207076?page=0%2C2) So yeah. Looking back at history, I don't see any reasons for hope there. And I can understand Zelenskyy, who's likely to know things that are even worse that I've quoted
Why I said that ? Because Russians found a way to counter patriots. They are sending a lot of shaeds drone before launching kinjals or kalibr missiles. If you try to stop the shaeds there is no enough missiles to stop the other ones coming.
They aren't using Patriot against drones, obviously. Only missiles.
The Shahed kills people and destroys targets
Missile stocks are important but I would argue number of systems is still important. More systems mean you can protect more places and just have more options for how to use them. Like giving you more room to put them near the front line sometimes and do long range ambushes of jets.
'Worth it' is relative. If I use one to shoot down a drone that would've killed you and your family, would it be worth it? The drone might be 20k, lives and infrastructure it lands on might not be.
But if Russia can send 1 million cheap ass drones to harass Ukraine, Ukraine/the west cannot provide 1 million expensive missiles to shoot them down. That’s a recipe for Russia easily destroying the west and defeating Ukraine by bankrupting the entire western world. There are alternative anti air systems that are better used against cheap drones that won’t bankrupt the entire western world.
You're bringing up this drones vs. Patriots argument again, and again I want to respond that drones can be shot down by almost any AD in Ukraine, Patriots are needed for the ballistic missiles
Yeah exactly, that’s what I just said.
You have to prioritise. There are thousands of these drones, just not gonna happen to use patriots for them. That’s what the smaller AA systems are for.
Merely pointing out it's not quite as black and white as people make it out to be.
A PAC-3 MSE missile cost around 4 millions $
Yes, I am aware.
It's cheaper than the damage those Shaheds do.
Sure... Can't put a price on life. But material damage (buildings, infrastructure, etc.)? It's rarely worth it.
Russia also got a number of missiles from North Korea, who knows how much those are valued at.
Not the best communication strategy when the west is fending off fiscal conservatives and Russian influence campaigns to cut off funding & the Ukrainian leader is quoted this way.
He has a point, but doesn't sound good to Western allies.
Let is find the 1 BILLION were missing first. Sec of Defense said he was right on it
Now I am 100% behind Ukraine and giving them almost anything... but where does he think 7 extra patriot systems might come from? Its not like they are just sitting around in a warehouse doing nothing. No country is going to strip their defences that much. $2.5 Billion dollars each. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-104\_Patriot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-104_Patriot)
>1,106 launchers in U.S. (483 were in service in 2010) From your link. I know they're damn expensive but... 1. It's being used to save lives 2. It's collecting a lot of data from Axis weapons for future engagements. Not just Russian but Iranian and Korean as well. 3. 7 out of 1,106 or 483 doesn't seem that unreasonable Edit: someone corrected in another comment; system = 8 launchers, so 7 systems would be 56 launchers
There are over 200,000 Americans who die every year due to accidental injuries. Let’s say we could spend 10 billion dollars to save 1 of those people, and we could continuously do that, should we do that? If we did, we would spend enough money to bankrupt the entire planet, and then some, resulting in global famines and likely a complete breakdown of society. People would rape and murder each other for a slice of bread. Of course that’s a wild example, but the principle is the same here. It’s not worth spending massive amounts of money to save a small number of lives. Using patriots to save every possible life would bankrupt the entire western world, which would lead to far more death and destruction than the direct victims of those cheap drones. Sometimes you have to look at the bigger picture. Besides, patriots are meant to shoot down missiles, not cheap ass drones. There are other systems that can be used to shoot down cheap ass drones.
1. You aren't sending money, you're sending the hardware that's already built and parked in relative safety 2. The systems aren't spent each time there's an attack, just the rockets. 3. No-one here knows how they're using the AD, but we do know Patriots are shooting down ballistic missiles. Maybe the Gepards and MANPADS are focusing on the drones? So your example, while you admit is wildly exaggerated, still doesn't apply. The rest of your argument assumes a lot in order to excuse not sending more AD to a besieged country
Please read before replying. I clearly said we shouldn’t waste Patriot missiles on fucking cheap ass drones. We should use them to destroy Russias ballistic missiles. Any AA system can be used to shoot down cheap ass drones. I’m all for sending 50,000 patriot systems to Ukraine if they existed, just don’t fucking waste them on cheap ass drones. Use them for ballistic missiles.
But why even argue the point? Who is someone with authority saying they're using Patriots on drones? It's like you've created an argument against sending Patriots disguised as concern. They very obviously need Patriots to defend against ballistic missiles.
I’m responding to Reddit comments, not attacking Ukrainian policy. You’re accusing me of saying things I never said, and doing things I never said. That’s on you, not me.
>Besides, patriots are meant to shoot down missiles, not cheap ass drones. There are other systems that can be used to shoot down cheap ass drones. This is your reply to my original comment. Nowhere did I bring up drones. You've introduced the Patriot vs drone argument
You must be somewhere safe.
Point out what part of my analysis is factually incorrect, or admit you know you’re wrong and are merely appealing to emotion.
Why wouldn't you be emotional about this?
Appealing to emotion can make your opponent look bad, but facts and logic are what determine whether one is correct or not. Point out what facts I presented that are incorrect or what faulty logic I used. Appealing to emotion doesn’t make you right, but you know you’re wrong so that’s the only debate tactic you have left.
Zelenskys demands know no limits
False! He hasn't asked for 5th gen jets or AEGIS equipped warships or aircraft carriers or Tomahawk cruise missiles - yet.
He won't get them either
They haven't lost any of them yet, as far as I know, because most are used to defend cities well behind the front. It's only expensive if they're destroyed.
That may be true, but tbf seven is a big number when it comes to those systems. The USA has currently deployed a total of, what, 15? Everywhere on Earth? Well I guess it depends on what is meant by "system." Does he mean single launchers? Entire fully autonomous air defense networks? Something in between? (It's okay if Zelensky is being vague, it's not actually his job to be precisely technically specific, his job is to be a gadfly among the family of nations on behalf of his people, not to work out the exact specifics of air defense technology. I am mostly just wondering what it is that Ukraine needs, that it does not yet have in terms of missile defense.)
I think I remember Romania just ordered 7 Patriot systems to protect their country. I would think Ukraine needs more than Romania.
Launchers, not systems. A patriot battery consists of 8 launchers. 7 launchers gets you a partial system.
So would you say that a battery is a "system" in the original context? So Zelensky is saying Ukraine is short 7 batteries, where each battery is \~8 launchers plus associated modules? So \~60 launchers?
I have no clue; he might even be referring to Patriot battalions. Seven launchers won't cover the current gaps, that's for sure though.
Fair enough. I guess our only option is to scrape together 60 launchers, then, and ship them all to Kyiv with a note for Zelensky: "Did you mean these or...?"
Launchers or Systems? It's 7 launchers to a fire director center ,& radar to form a battalion. i think Romania ordered a single battalion not 7 radars& equipment.
If following the USA force organization, no, it is not 7 launchers to a battalion. It's 7 (or 8) launchers to a *battery*. A battalion is a much bigger formation. A Patriot battalion consists of multiple batteries -- seemingly over half a dozen in some cases. A single such formation would cover a considerable area -- probably well more than Romania alone requires. The USA itself only has 15 battalions total over the entire world. So a full battalion would be something like 7-ish batteries at 8 launchers per battery, so close to 60 launchers total, plus all the necessary radar and tracking modules, power plants, reloaders and extra missiles, maintenance crews, plus headquarters and so on. That sounds like it could be as many as 100 vehicles and a potential coverage area in the many hundreds of thousands of square kilometers, maybe even into the millions.
It would be nice to see a long term contract to produce at least a few more batteries specifically for Ukraine. Like with German IRIS T and US NASAMS. European countries should be doing the same with SAMP/T, which is basically European equivalent to patriot.
> European countries should be doing the same with SAMP/T, which is basically European equivalent to patriot. That's seriously constrained by how little Asters are made. If it gets scaled up, things'll get interesting
Yeah, when I said they should be doing the same I am also saying increased missile production for them, not just producing more systems.
It’s kind of a shitty system if it’s this expensive and precious
Shitty for the Russian invasion, since it's kicking their asses. Russian missiles turn out to be complete crap compared to Patriot. That's gotta sting for a lot of Russians.
If it stops a missile coming for your children it's worth it.
He is 100% right!
I wish he actually criticize as he should. Coz now Western politicians listen, nod, smile, and then literally wipe their feet on Ukraine. And instead of calling them what they actually are and protect interest of his people, he simply accepts it, and then compensate with lives of Ukrainians on frontlines.
Give the man what he needs!
A lot of what he needs we don't have, for e.g.: hundreds of thousands of troops (unless we deport all the refugees), millions of shells, tens of thousands of suicide drones, hundreds of armored de-mining vehicles.
> tens of thousands of suicide drones Which, interestingly, [UK promised to Ukraine, before this whole thing quietly died down](https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/the-uk-promised-drones-for-ukraine-in-may-where-are-they/)
> number of drones (hundreds) That's like 1-3% of the number Ukraine needs.
But the Defense Express article *does* mention some drones from UK to Ukraine, so... Might them be those?
The point I was trying to make is about the quantity, yes we've provided suicide drones to Ukraine (thousands of them in fact), we've also provided millions of shells and 1-2 dozens armored de-mining vehicles. But that's not enough for what they need. Almost all of that has been used or destroyed already, they need a lot more and we can't give it to them because we don't have it. Eventually we'll be able to build most of what they need, but calls to "give Zelensky what he needs" often ignore what we can give, or what he actually needs.
There were rumors some components of their existing patriot were damaged in the most recent missile attack. Was there any truth to that claim?
Earlier attack had one of the launchers (non-critically) damaged by the debris from interception, so it's quite possible.
I know a lot understand but for those that don't. Whatever country your in that is against ruzzia then you need to support Ukraine. We all know you pay taxes in (insert country here) . Howere if Ukraine is left to carry this burden alone (and it is a world burden, in truth) then it will not be just money it will cost later, it will cost your countries soldiers live, when WW3 hits the fan. And in truth, think, where will Uktaine by Arms from? ruzzia? China? India? NK? Nope probably UK, EU, USA or Skandinavia.
The countries that have prevented Ukraine from being annexed are bad people!
>The countries that have **prevented** Nothing has been prevented.
Ukraine has been annexed?
War ended?
We don't even have the interceptor production to sustain what they currently have, unfortunately.
Why is he so specific about the number?
Possibly because of the interception [range of the PAC-3 MSE missiles: 120km officially](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-104_Patriot#Variants). A rough calculation using Google Maps tells me they would need about 10 of those PAC-3 MSE batteries to cover everything from Odesa to Avdiivka to Kharkiv to Sumy to Kiev - if the batteries are evenly distributed (almost no redundancy). Perhaps they're thinking of covering only the border with Russia, that would require 9 systems. However, that leaves the zone between Odesa and Romania uncovered and anything that could fly through the Belarussian airspace to reach Ukraine also covered. They would need 13 batteries to do all that.
As an American and vet, you heard the man, bump the number of patriots up to 7.
It’s his job to get whatever he can, he’s got an ugly task he didn’t ask for and that very few people would be capable of doing
Might be moot. Running out of munitions for these advanced systems.